One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Farsight001]

So you have read his books, then, to know that he hasn’t a clue?

Of course, though I have seen enough people try to present his arguments here and other places that it wouldn’t be necessary. A person would not have to read the book if someone else comes along and tells them whats in it.

Meyer is at fault for clearly defining the subtle facets of what is meant by “evolution” in order to properly address the issues with it, but, you, by deliberately keeping the term ambiguous in order to attack “creationists,” are doing us all a service?

No, quite the opposite. He is at fault for obfuscating the issue with false definitions of evolution, and the real meaning is anything but ambiguous.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Which is in no way “random,” correct?

Well, that remains to be determined, right?

If the universe itself is undesigned, unguided, blind and without purpose, then the “natural” selection processes at work in the environment would appear to be chance “natural” outcomes acting on random mutations. So, in that case, it would be randomly arrived at natural selection mechanisms that act on random genetic mutations.

So not merely “random,” but “random random.”

The question is: Why God would resort to “random,” i.e., genetic mutation, in the first place?

As a theistic evolutionist, do you have a proper answer for that?

It would appear, also, that as a theistic evolutionist you would have to endorse some form of cosmological “fine tuning” in order to explain how the environment could be “set up” to properly select biological outcomes. If you deny that, then I am not sure what is left to you when you claim God “created” the universe.

As David Berlinski pointed out, it is difficult to comprehend how information “coded” in any form would be improved by randomly altering bits of it. I would think computer programmers and mathematicians would get that.

 

[Farsight001]

Well, that remains to be determined, right?

No, it doesn’t.

If the universe itself is undesigned, unguided, blind and without purpose, then the “natural” selection processes at work in the environment would appear to be chance “natural” outcomes acting on random mutations. So, in that case, it would be randomly arrived at natural selection mechanisms that act on random genetic mutations.

Unguided does not mean random. Have you seen naturally occurring crystals before? They are unguided, but certainly not random.

The question is: Why God would resort to “random,” i.e., genetic mutation, in the first place?

I think the real question is whether he did or not, not why he would. And the evidence is clear - he did.

As David Berlinski pointed out, it is difficult to comprehend how information “coded” in any form would be improved by randomly altering bits of it. I would think computer programmers and mathematicians would get that.

Because natural selection is also a component of evolution, not found in computers. It is random mutation and natural selection WORKING TOGETHER that creates improvement.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course, though I have seen enough people try to present his arguments here and other places that it wouldn’t be necessary. A person would not have to read the book if someone else comes along and tells them whats in it.

Oh my!

I think you’ve just made my case.

Say this line of yours slowly over and over again to yourself:

A person would not have to read the book if someone else comes along and tells them whats in it.

You don’t seriously endorse that method of scholarship, do you?

No, quite the opposite. He is at fault for obfuscating the issue with false definitions of evolution, and the real meaning is anything but ambiguous.

The real meaning “change over time” is an undeniable fact. The problem is with all the theoretical baggage that has been smuggled in as necessary aspects of the fact. Some even want to insist “evolution” holds with regard to the unfolding of the universe itself. Tel me you aren’t one of those, are you?

 

[Brendan]

I think the real question is whether he did or not, not why he would. And the evidence is clear - he did…

What definition of ‘random’ are you envisioning when you make this statement?

For example, I am an engineer, and married to a physicist. The definition we use in practice is that the outcome of a specific event cannot be predicted except as residing with a range of possible outcomes.

That is the definition my wife uses when she references radioactive decay.

If you are envisioning a similar definition, do you reconcile that to the omniscient of God.

 

[Farsight001]

Oh my!

I think you’ve just made my case.

Say this line of yours slowly over and over again to yourself:

A person would not have to read the book if someone else comes along and tells them whats in it.

You don’t seriously endorse that method of scholarship, do you?

Lol. No need to overreact. The point is that if you are here presenting his arguments to me, then I can address those arguments here and explain here why they are faulty and how I know, through his arguments, that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about without actually reading his book. Or do YOU want to suggest that an illiterate person can’t possibly be smart because they can only be verbally taught whats in the book and can’t read physically read it for themselves?

The real meaning “change over time” is an undeniable fact. The problem is with all the theoretical baggage that has been smuggled in as necessary aspects of the fact. Some even want to insist “evolution” holds with regard to the unfolding of the universe itself. Tel me you aren’t one of those, are you?

Only the creationists suggest that evolution holds with regard to the unfolding of the universe itself. As I already pointed out, that is not part of the definition of scientific evolution, despite Meyer’s and others’ claims otherwise.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Because natural selection is also a component of evolution, not found in computers. It is random mutation and natural selection WORKING TOGETHER that creates improvement.

The point is that with any “functional” code, random change is exponentially more likely to degrade functionality than to improve it. Random change, mathematically speaking, would not create improvements to “select” between because the improvements would be few and far between, far fewer than degradations which would more likely result in a collapse of functionality before natural selection could “works its magic.”

The old saying, “If it ain’t broke” applies here in spades.

I think we have far exceeded moderator tolerance regarding the ban on discussing evo. I am done.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Well, that remains to be determined, right?

If you mean proven, yes, but don’t say evolution is based on
randomness, because I believe random is often inconclusive-
ly God’s Hand unseen by creation.

If the universe itself is undesigned, unguided, blind and without purpose, then the “natural” selection processes at work in the environment would appear to be chance “natural” outcomes acting on random mutations. So, in that case, it would be randomly arrived at natural selection mechanisms that act on random genetic mutations.

As far as SCIENCE perceives, it is all random, but that’s because science
does not answer the ultimate “WHY?” That is God’s jurisdiction. Does not
make science wrong, it just doesn’t answer the higher things.

So not merely “random,” but “random random.”

More like “as far as we can perceive” random.
We can’t see, hear, or feel God doing things,
he just does. We can talk about all the phys-
ical aspects all we like and not be wrong and
it still doesn’t exclude God.

The question is: Why God would resort to “random,” i.e., genetic mutation, in the first place?
As a theistic evolutionist, do you have a proper answer for that?

Is God not allowed to? Who are you to boss God around saying
“NO, you CAN’T do that!” Why would God? Because God did.

It would appear, also, that as a theistic evolutionist you would have to endorse some form of cosmological “fine tuning” in order to explain how the environment could be “set up” to properly select biological outcomes. If you deny that, then I am not sure what is left to you when you claim God “created” the universe.

God controls everything, and we have no right to question or
judge him on how he does it. We can only see what he has
done. The secret things are of God and we can’t know every-
thing, but that doesn’t mean we can’t know anything, we just
can’t answer the “WHY” on at every turn. Creationists beg to
differ, however, because while science will admit that we have
blind-spots, Creationists believe they have it all figured out.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Lol. No need to overreact. The point is that if you are here presenting his arguments to me, then I can address those arguments here and explain here why they are faulty and how I know, through his arguments, that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about without actually reading his book. Or do YOU want to suggest that an illiterate person can’t possibly be smart because they can only be verbally taught whats in the book and can’t read physically read it for themselves?

Not overreacting, I just think that is not a legitimate way of approaching any topic. This is “hearsay” learning that will make others question every statement you make and why you are making it.

Even if someone cannot “read it for themselves” is not a justification for resorting to interpretation rather than having the original document read to them.

Only the creationists suggest that evolution holds with regard to the unfolding of the universe itself. As I already pointed out, that is not part of the definition of scientific evolution, despite Meyer’s and others’ claims otherwise.

A case in point. Meyer makes no such claim Why are you ascribing this to him? Because someone told you? Because you read it somewhere? Because you have an “impression” that he would? Because you wrongly inferred it from what I wrote?

All the more reason to go to the source.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think the real question is whether he did or not, not why he would. And the evidence is clear - he did.

Well, no. You even admit that “random” may merely be perceived as such and not really be “random” at all. If, “random” merely means our inability to see God’s hand, then God does not make use of randomness at all.

If you mean proven, yes, but don’t say evolution is based on randomness, because I believe random is often inconclusively God’s Hand unseen by creation.
…
More like “as far as we can perceive” random.
We can’t see, hear, or feel God doing things,
he just does. We can talk about all the phys-
ical aspects all we like and not be wrong and
it still doesn’t exclude God.

Is God not allowed to? Who are you to boss God around saying
“NO, you CAN’T do that!” Why would God? Because God did.

God controls everything, and we have no right to question or
judge him on how he does it. We can only see what he has
done. The secret things are of God and we can’t know every-
thing, but that doesn’t mean we can’t know anything, we just
can’t answer the “WHY” on at every turn. Creationists beg to
differ, however, because while science will admit that we have
blind-spots, Creationists believe they have it all figured out.

Sounds like you are a closet creationist (of the old earth variety) who merely wants to keep “intelligent design” under cover so as not to be labeled as an anti-intellectual.

Creationists don’t have it all figured out, but neither do materialist evolutionists. That much is clear. I just don’t think it is necessary to cede intellectual territory unnecessarily.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

…Sounds like you are a closet creationist (of the old earth variety) who merely wants to keep “intelligent design” under cover so as not to be labeled as an anti-intellectual.

Creationists don’t have it all figured out, but neither do materialist evolutionists. That much is clear. I just don’t think it is necessary to cede intellectual territory unnecessarily.

What? No, I believe God created all things, yes, that the Book of Genesis credits
ALL things to God, and so forth, but I don’t believe birds flew before cattle walked,
as a Creationist would. One of my favorite evolutionary lines is that of the whale, I
believe in it fully, also am fond of birds, the last of the dinosaurs.

I’m not a non-intelligent Intelligent-Designist, I am a “Theistic Evolutionist,” though
to be quite frank, I don’t approve the word “Evolutionist” as it SUGGESTS a devia-
tion from religion. I do believe in an Intelligent Designer, but that’s about as close
as I’ll ever come to Creationists, the rest of its fake science I reject.

?(Don’t get your last sentence)?

 

[Darryl1958]

I think my last few replies were mostly statements, explanations,
not questions, so maybe that’s the problem. You’re trying to read
non-questions as questions. I can see how that is problematic.

I think that parents are the the first and primary installers of values in children, and the ideally are the authorities who would be most aware of their children’s individual needs.
So that is why it would be parents who first and foremost would be the ones to choose which school that their children go to.
That is just standard operating procedure.

Then someone brought up the idea that a child’s family is often broken and entirely dysfunctional in America, and that this is skewing the marks down. Without family stability and role modeling, the task of education becomes difficult.

My counter is that school choice where the parents can choose the type of school and the can have the type of values that are lacking in the home modeled in the school itself could act as a step in the right direction.
It doesn’t seem to me though that you have been taking the answers I have given you very seriously.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I think that parents are the the first and primary installers of values in children, and the ideally are the authorities who would be most aware of their children’s individual needs.
So that is why it would be parents who first and foremost would be the ones to choose which school that their children go to.
That is just standard operating procedure.

Then someone brought up the idea that a child’s family is often broken and entirely dysfunctional in America, and that this is skewing the marks down. Without family stability and role modeling, the task of education becomes difficult.

My counter is that school choice where the parents can choose the type of school and the can have the type of values that are lacking in the home modeled in the school itself could act as a step in the right direction.
It doesn’t seem to me though that you have been taking the answers I have given you very seriously.

So if parents who dropped out of high school and both decide that math class is useless
should be the ones who decide what’s important for their children to learn? Not all parents
are as intelligent as you think, and you want ALL parents to be in charge of their children’s
education? Some parents can be really BAD parents and you want children’s lives in their
hands?! Why would you do something like that?

On your second paragraph, you believe family stability is necessary, but educa-
tion has little to do with how ordered or screwed up a family is or is not. You are
giving me circular logic now, I feel (yet another logical fallacy brought to us by a
Creationist). We’re actually getting off topic now, back to Evolution.

 

[edwest2]

From Communion and Stewardship:

“But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Darryl1958]

So if parents who dropped out of high school and both decide that math class is useless
should be the ones who decide what’s important for their children to learn? Not all parents
are as intelligent as you think, and you want ALL parents to be in charge of their children’s
education? Some parents can be really BAD parents and you want children’s lives in their
hands?! Why would you do something like that?

On your second paragraph, you believe family stability is necessary, but educa-
tion has little to do with how ordered or screwed up a family is or is not. You are
giving me circular logic now, I feel (yet another logical fallacy brought to us by a
Creationist). We’re actually getting off topic now, back to Evolution.

I do want ALL parents to be in charge of their children. Really BAD parents who do harm to their children need to be dealt with for the abuse they do. Their rights to their children are not absolute. The Catholic position cannot be ‘my body, my choice’ before or after the child leaves the womb. In normal circumstances, these are decisions that must be left with the parents. Bureaucrats can be stupid too, and they have no direct access to the individual child.

No voucher or home schooling system as they exist today is without legislated standards, so your concerns are against a system such as no one anywhere has ever advocated in the first place. Catholic education in particular is highly esteemed for its academic quality.

Education in the broader sense has everything to do with how screwed up the family has become. It is not our genes that have changed in the last 50 years, but our culture, and culture is a learned phenomena. Schools have been seen as a marvelous and effect conveyor of culture since at least the time of the counter-Reformation and Jesuit success directly through the education of children.
It is certainly in a societies interest to legislate standards, and it is also in the children’s interests that they get the best education possible according to those standards.

I now understand the negative attitude that I detected in your posts towards me have nothing to do with my answers to you, but are based on your prejudice that I am a Creationist, whatever that means.
Since I have not once on this thread addressed evolution, but only your post that was about values in education, it would seem to be that the leaps in logic are all of your own making.

 

[Tenofovir]

Seriously?! Because they develop that antibiotic resistance THROUGH THE ACT OF EVOLVING! Do you guys seriously know THAT LITTLE about evolution? Holy cow! And yes, I am really that surprised. No mocking tone intended.

Yes. But you can deny evolution and believe in a 6000 year old earth and it won’t make any difference to your research. The researcher gathers data by looking at what happens here and now, and not what is thought to have happened ages ago. Evolution is entirely irrelevant. Now you may need to know about genetics, mutations, gene transfer among bacteria and so on Or you may even re-discover some of these things using empirical research. Afterwards someone will come along and say this sub-type of E coli was selected out millions of years ago because it lived in environment X which must have been full of fungi, these mutations were then saved and lay dormant until they were needed again. But TOE as such in the broad sense is irrelevant to discovering this and especially applying it. Do note that genetics is not evolution. If you want to see if a particular bacterial culture is resistant to Vancomycin you have to culture it in the presence of Vancomycin or if you know some associated mutations (discovered using proximate research) you could sequence the bacteria’s nucleic acid code and suspect the bugs are resistant. But you can’t just look at a petri dish and say these things are resistant because of evolution. You need to culture each strain for each patient, sometimes many times. Evolutionary explanations are irrelevant.

An easier example. Man and Chimps have a common ancestor. Researcher X decides to find a suitable hip bone donor for human use.

He could consider evolution and decide the Chimp (or whatever it is) is close to us and so he’ll harvest chimps.
He could look at animals and decide which are most applicable and then harvest chimps.

(Never mind that he’ll still need to HLA match them to avoid rejection and such, and TOE won’t help him there. It all have to be empirical.)

Often I think people are out to get me. I am typically wrong, though.

I have no idea what you mean. It’s just important to think things through and realise that evolution has limited application. If it makes predictions, those predictions need to be first verified with good old fashioned empirical research before we can apply them. Often the predictions are changed based on results of this research, any Young Earth Creationist can do.

I’m honestly amused at how hung up people are over evolution. If it was proved that the earth was 12,000 years old, it would not make any difference to any of our science or technology other than fields like evolutionary psychology would be in trouble. And those fields are of not much help at all.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I do want ALL parents to be in charge of their children. Really BAD parents who do harm to their children need to be dealt with for the abuse they do. Their rights to their children are not absolute. The Catholic position cannot be ‘my body, my choice’ before or after the child leaves the womb. In normal circumstances, these are decisions that must be left with the parents. Bureaucrats can be stupid too, and they have no direct access to the individual child.

No voucher or home schooling system as they exist today is without legislated standards, so your concerns are against a system such as no one anywhere has ever advocated in the first place. Catholic education in particular is highly esteemed for its academic quality.

Catholic education is good, I never denied that, but it does not belong in a public school.
Private Schools, yes, but not public schools which all Americans, Catholic or not, are to
pay taxes for the support of public education.

I now understand the negative attitude that I detected in your posts towards me have nothing to do with my answers to you, but are based on your prejudice that I am a Creationist, whatever that means.

I have no prejudice, I just don’t believe it’s right to IMPOSE Catholicism on every-
one. It is the goal of Creationists, however (it’s a fact), to infiltrate public schools
and forceteacher to teach “Intelligent Design” in Science classrooms and treat it
as though it were real science, which is a lie, and I don’t like that.

Since I have not once on this thread addressed evolution, but only your post that was about values in education, it would seem to be that the leaps in logic are all of your own making.

Oh dear, I think you are right in that respect, however this thread is about evolution,
so the only thing I could have assumed was that your posts were in relation to the
subject of Evolution and the how “One-third of Americans reject evolution.”

 

[Farsight001]

The point is that with any “functional” code, random change is exponentially more likely to degrade functionality than to improve it. Random change, mathematically speaking, would not create improvements to “select” between because the improvements would be few and far between, far fewer than degradations which would more likely result in a collapse of functionality before natural selection could “works its magic.”

The old saying, “If it ain’t broke” applies here in spades.

I think we have far exceeded moderator tolerance regarding the ban on discussing evo. I am done.

Random chance WORKING ALONE will statistically neither improve nor degrade. But as I have pointed out, it is not working alone. Natural selection is a factor as well, and that’s all that’s needed to push it towards improvement.

 

[Farsight001]

Not overreacting, I just think that is not a legitimate way of approaching any topic. This is “hearsay” learning that will make others question every statement you make and why you are making it.

So I should not trust in your ability to accurately represent Meyer’s arguments?

Even if someone cannot “read it for themselves” is not a justification for resorting to interpretation rather than having the original document read to them.

Who said anything about interpretation?

A case in point. Meyer makes no such claim Why are you ascribing this to him? Because someone told you? Because you read it somewhere?

YOU told me earlier in this thread! It was your list of 6 “levels” of evolution that YOU attributed to Meyer.

Furthermore, that book is not the only thing Meyer wrote or said. I have seen him say this myself, and it would be nice if you would not make assumptions about me in order to accuse me of making assumptions.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Too Late to Edit, but Can’t Let it Go)

Originally Posted by Darryl1958